The conviction of senior Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Azam Khan by a local court in Rampur and his subsequent disqualification from the Uttar Pradesh Assembly have created a flutter on the ground.
While the bureaucracy — which was one of the principal targets of Mr. Khan’s ‘hate speech’ — feels vindicated, the leader’s supporters and party colleagues feel that though he may have made a mistake, the punishment given to him is not commensurate with his transgression.
During the 2019 Lok Sabha election campaign, Mr. Khan had used provocative remarks against the then Rampur District Magistrate Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Congress candidate Sanjay Kapoor.
A case was registered against him in Rampur in April 2019.
Provocative: Court
In his order, typed in Hindi, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nishant Maan found Mr. Khan guilty of violating Sections 153A and 505 (1) of the IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.
The order said the accused was a law graduate, a former Cabinet Minister and a member of the Legislative Assembly when he made the said speech and that his speeches have had a special impact on people. “The words used in the speech and their purpose were, as per law, provocative and repulsive. They could have divided society and led to a breach of law and order, and peace. The words were used with the intent to humiliate the government and the administration, and sought to generate hatred against the government,” it said.
‘Bail mandatory’
After the verdict was pronounced, Mr. Khan pointed out that bail was mandatory in the case, but he was given the maximum punishment possible (under Section 125 of the RPA). “ Main insaaf ka kayal ho gaya (I have become an admirer of justice),” he said in his trademark sarcastic tone.
In its order of disqualification, the Assembly Secretariat cited the Supreme Court judgment of 2013 in Lily Thomas vs. Union of India case (along with Lok Prahari vs. Union of India ), wherein the apex court ruled that any Member of Parliament, Member of the Assembly or Member of the Legislative Council who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years’ imprisonment, loses membership of the House with immediate effect.
Earlier, the convicted members used to hold on to their seats until they exhausted all the available judicial remedies.
Now, the only relief possible is that Mr. Khan contests the by-election from the Rampur Assembly constituency if the conviction order is stayed by the Allahabad High Court.
SP silent
Curiously, the SP is silent on the verdict, but party insiders said the quantum of punishment seemed to have been decided to ensure Mr. Khan’s immediate disqualification from the Assembly.
Party spokesperson Abdul Hafiz Gandhi said as a citizen he was dissatisfied with the decision. “If the speech is analysed as a whole, there is nothing which attracts the ‘hate’ speech provisions in the IPC.”
He alleged that the government of the day was hell-bent on destroying the political capital of Mr. Khan. “He is the victim of political vindictiveness.”
Discrimination: RLD
Young SP leader Masood Hasan, nephew of Moradabad MP S.T. Hasan, drew parallels with the alleged hate speeches made by BJP MP Parvesh Singh Verma, Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP leader Kapil Mishra. “No tangible action has been taken in these cases, but Azam sahib has been given the maximum punishment possible in the case. This is the India of eight years where verdicts are passed going by the clothes of the accused.”
Rashtriya Lok Dal chief Jayant Singh also suggested discrimination. He asked why BJP MLA Vikram Saini, who was recently sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by a special court in connection with a Muzaffarnagar riots case of 2013, had not been disqualified under the provisions of the RPA. “What about Vikram Saini, BJP MLA from Khatauli, who was convicted on October 11 for two years?” he tweeted.
‘Primary target’
Meanwhile, Moradabad Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, who was the District Magistrate of Rampur when the speech was made, hoped the ruling would make politicians respect the model code of conduct during elections and refrain from spewing hatred and dividing voters. “I know comparisons would be made, but in this case, the prosecution succeeded because we managed to preserve the primary evidence, the hard disk of the device on which the speech was recorded. Usually, in such cases, the prosecution comes up with the copies of the original, which the courts consider secondary evidence.”
Mr. Singh agreed that he was the primary target of the speech. “At that time, we were the representatives of the Election Commission, and casting aspersions on our integrity amounted to inciting the public against a constitutional body,” he said.
Describing Mr. Khan as a repeat offender, Mr. Singh said the seasoned politician had a huge following in the district where Muslims are not in minority.
Mirza Asmer Baig, professor of Political Science at Aligarh Muslim University, said it was a “good beginning” in accordance with the SC’s directions on prompt action against the accused in cases of hate speech. “But it remains to be seen if it is fairly implemented across the board.”
As for the political impact, Prof. Baig said it could generate some sympathy for Mr. Khan, who is at the end of his career, but is unlikely to cause a major political upheaval.
